JUDGMENT : 1. In this appeal, sole appellant Tilu Mahto has assailed the judgment of conviction dated 17.09.1994 and order of sentence dated 19.09.1994 passed by Sri Satyendra Kumar Gupta, learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 1992, arising out of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 03 of 1992 dated 01.01.1992, G.R. No.19 of 1992, whereby the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh has convicted the appellant under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that the informant Jagdish Munda got his statement recorded before the police on 02.01.1992 stating that on 01.01.1992 his brother Sanichar Munda had gone to Karma Kiari near CCL Office where he met the appellant. The appellant asked for his due money from his brother on which there was some exchange of words but after a while the matter subsided and at about 10.00 hours daytime, they both went to Khira Bera Basti and took wine and thereafter returned to the hotel of the appellant. In the hotel, they got eggs prepared and they along with one unknown person sat together in the nearby nursery of the jungle for taking food. The informant further stated that his villagers Raimani, Jaimani, Sumitra Kumari, Sanju, Fulmani, etc. were picking wood in the jungle. They saw that the appellant and another person took Sanichar Munda (deceased) in the mid of the jungle and started assaulting him and cut his neck and abdomen by Farsa. The deceased fell on the earth. The said girls came to their village and told the villagers that appellant Tilu Mahto and other unknown person had cut the neck and abdomen of the deceased by Farsa. Thereupon, the informant and other villagers went to the jungle and saw that neck and abdomen of Sanichar Munda were cut and he had died. In the morning they informed the police and the F.I.R. was registered accordingly. The informant alleged that the occurrence took place due to monetary transactions and he did not know anything more. On the basis of the above fardbeyan, formal F.I.R. was registered against the appellant and one unknown person, however, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted only against the appellant under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The informant alleged that the occurrence took place due to monetary transactions and he did not know anything more. On the basis of the above fardbeyan, formal F.I.R. was registered against the appellant and one unknown person, however, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted only against the appellant under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 28.09.1992 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. P.W. 2 Jagdish Munda is the informant of this case. He is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W. 1 Jaimani Kumari, P.W. 3 Raimani both are nieces of the deceased. P.W. 4 Sanju, P.W.5 Fulmani, P.W. 6 Sumitra Kumari are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 7 Lalan Lal is the formal witness being witness to the seizure list Annexure-1. P.W.8 Lalkeshwar Mahto has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. P.W.10 Dr. Lala Sailesh Kumar Sinha has conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.9 Madhusudan Prasad is the Investigating Officer of the case. The prosecution has also relied upon several exhibits, like the First Information Report, Inquest Report, Post mortem report etc. to prove the case of the prosecution. The defence, on the other hand, has not examined any witness on its behalf. Basing on the statement of the eyewitnesses as supported by the statement of the Doctor, the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribag came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that one Charka Munda, Chowkidar of the village had reported that a dead body was lying in the jungle. On the basis of such information, a station diary entry was made and then he proceeded to the place of occurrence. It is submitted that neither the said Charka Munda was examined as a witness of the prosecution nor the station diary entry has been proved. He would further submit that the evidence of the informant is also not corroborated that the said Charka Munda, Chowkidar of the village, reported the occurrence to the police on the next day on 02.01.1992. It is submitted that neither the said Charka Munda was examined as a witness of the prosecution nor the station diary entry has been proved. He would further submit that the evidence of the informant is also not corroborated that the said Charka Munda, Chowkidar of the village, reported the occurrence to the police on the next day on 02.01.1992. He had only brought the police officer to the dead body. Thus, there is a delay in lodging of the FIR. He would further submit that the villagers had come to know about the alleged murder of the deceased on 01.01.1992 in the evening around 4 p.m., however, no such information was made to the police on the same day and, therefore, the case of the prosecution becomes suspect. He would further submit that the Doctor P.W. 10 had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body on 03.01.1992 and he stipulated the time of death to be within 24 hours. Therefore, it is submitted that there is a suppression of material facts and the case as presented is not proved. Moreover, it is further submitted that there appears to be no motive for the commission of the crime. The prosecution would rely upon certain allegations that there are some financial transactions between the deceased and the accused appellant, but that fact has not been established beyond reasonable doubts. Moreover, the evidence of PW.8 Lalkeshwar Mahto does not support the case of the prosecution which is causing vital lacuna in the prosecution case. He is termed as an independent witness. It is the case of the prosecution that in the shop of the said witness, the appellant and another along with the deceased had consumed liquor and during such consumption of liquor, there was a fight between them and the occurrence took place at the different place. Terming the eyewitnesses to be “child witnesses” between age group 10 to 15, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no reliance can be placed on their evidence. 6. Terming the eyewitnesses to be “child witnesses” between age group 10 to 15, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no reliance can be placed on their evidence. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that the statement of eyewitnesses which is duly corroborated by the findings recorded in the post-mortem examination conducted by the doctor, has proved the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court requiring interference of the Appellate Court. 7. Examination of evidence of P.W.10 Dr. Lala Sailesh Kumar Sinha reveals that on 03.01.1992 he was posted in the Sadar Hospital Hazaribagh. On that day, he conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Shanichara Munda, aged about 25 to 30 years, son of late Tibua Munda of village-Karma, Tola- Satakia, P.S.-Mandu (Kujju) and found the following ante mortem injuries:- (i) Sharp cut and lacerated wound over anterior part of neck (front portion of neck) 4” x 1” hyoid bone fractured. (ii) Whole abdomen showed cut injuries, exposed and visible, intestine was cut and visible, injury was from whole lower chest to umbilical region, viscera was visible. He has further found that the lungs were intact and pale. Both the chambers of heart were empty. Liver, kidneys were intact and pale. Spleen intact and slightly congested. Stomach contained undigested egg and flour about 4 ounce. Intestine contained faeces and gas. He fixed the time of post-mortem examination to be within 24 hours of the death. He further opined that the death was due to cut injury over anterior part of the neck, chest and abdomen leading to hemorrhage and shock. Post-mortem examination report has been exhibited and his signature is Exhibit 6 on it. In the cross examination, he stated that he conducted the post-mortem examination at about 2.45 pm on 03.01.1992. The deceased was not known to him before the post-mortem examination. He was identified by his relation. Rigor mortis was present both in upper and lower limbs. He further stated that rigor mortis remains present upto 24 hours depending on the weather. He has not mentioned any date about the period elapsed since death. The injuries are possible by any sharp cutting weapons like Sword, Bhala etc. He was identified by his relation. Rigor mortis was present both in upper and lower limbs. He further stated that rigor mortis remains present upto 24 hours depending on the weather. He has not mentioned any date about the period elapsed since death. The injuries are possible by any sharp cutting weapons like Sword, Bhala etc. He would further state in the cross-examination that undigested food remains in stomach upto six hours after taking the same. No other injuries was found except the injuries stated by him in the examination-in-chief. He denied the defence suggestion that the post- mortem examination was not scientifically done. Thus, it is clear that the evidence of the doctor establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and was caused due to injuries by sharp cutting weapon, which is consistent with the prosecution case. In such situation, it has to be examined by the Court whether the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses gets corroboration from the testimony of the doctor or not? 8. Examination of the testimonies of the eyewitnesses reveals that P.W.1 happens to be the niece of the informant who has stated that the incident took place one year prior in the jungle where she had gone to collect wood. She further states that the appellant killed her uncle Sanichara Munda by means of Farsa in his abdomen and neck. The time of occurrence was about 4-5 (evening). In para-7 she states that she told about the occurrence only to her parents and brother at 4.00 p.m. In para-8 she states that it takes 1-2 hours to reach jungle from her house. In para-9 she says that the occurrence took place immediately when she reached in the jungle. In para-10 this witness says that both the accused killed her uncle by giving Farsa blow 2-3 times each on his neck and abdomen. Thereafter, they got frightened and returned to their house at about 1.00 p.m. PW.3 Raimani is another niece of the deceased who claims to be an eyewitness of the occurrence. In para-2 she states that the appellant killed her uncle Sanichar Munda by Farsa. In her cross-examination in para-6 this witness has stated that Sanichar Munda lived in Ramgarh and worked as a labourer in the colliery. In para-2 she states that the appellant killed her uncle Sanichar Munda by Farsa. In her cross-examination in para-6 this witness has stated that Sanichar Munda lived in Ramgarh and worked as a labourer in the colliery. In para-7 she states that the jungle where she had gone to collect wood is near to her village where she reached within 2-4 minutes. In para-10 she says that appellant gave farsa blow to the deceased two times and another person did not attack the appellant. In para-11 she says that she had seen the murder within 20-25 hands. In para-16 she admits that she had given statement to the police that she had seen the deceased being dragged. PW.4 Sanju claims herself to be an eyewitness. In her examination-in-chief she states that the appellant and another person dragged the deceased towards jungle where Sanichar Munda was murdered by Farsa. In para-5 she states that it was about evening when the occurrence took place, but in the cross-examination she states that she had gone to collect wood in the morning. She further states that the deceased was her dada/grandfather in relation. She also states that the murder took place at a distance of about 10 steps in a bush and she was not frightened. PW.5 Phoolmani is another witness who claims herself as an eyewitness. She states that the appellant killed the deceased with Farsa. She says that the deceased is her brother in relation. In para-11 she states that it takes one hour to reach jungle from her village and the occurrence took place after 1 to 1½ hours of their reaching in jungle. PW.6 Sumitra Kumari is said to be an eyewitness to the occurrence. In examination-in-chief she states that the deceased was killed by the appellant and another person by means of Farsa. The occurrence took place at about 4.00 p.m. in the evening. In para-8 she says that the deceased was her brother in relation. She states that it takes two hours to reach the jungle from her house. In para-12 she says that she had gone to the jungle at 12.00 hours in the noon. PW.7 Lalan Lal is a formal witness who has proved the seizure-list as Annexure 1 and signature of witness Chakrapani Ghosh thereon as Annexure 1/1. PW.8 Lalkeshwar Mahto has been declared hostile by the prosecution. In para-12 she says that she had gone to the jungle at 12.00 hours in the noon. PW.7 Lalan Lal is a formal witness who has proved the seizure-list as Annexure 1 and signature of witness Chakrapani Ghosh thereon as Annexure 1/1. PW.8 Lalkeshwar Mahto has been declared hostile by the prosecution. He has denied that he had given statement to the police. PW.9 Madhusudan Prasad is the Investigating Officer of this case. In para-8 he has stated that he had recorded the statement of witness Lalkeshwar Mahto that the three persons had come to his Gumti and took liquor and thereafter they went towards jungle. 9. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution case is duly supported by the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. All these witnesses are young girls who had gone to forest to collect wood. These witnesses have been cross-examined at length but nothing substantial has been brought out in their cross examination. Moreover, not any suggestion was given to this witness that she has been tutored by any of his relation to implicate the accused in commission of the crime. It is true that two of the witnesses namely P.W.1 Jaimani Kumari and P.W. 3 Raimani Kumari are relations of the deceased but that itself would not be sufficient to discard their evidences only because these witnesses happen to be the relation of the deceased. The Court is required to carefully examine their statement. Only if it is apparent on the face of the record or it has been stipulated in the cross-examination that she has deliberately implicated the appellant with an ulterior motive, then only the evidence of the witness should be discarded. In fact, the common experience shows that generally a witness who is related to the deceased would not implicate the accused with false allegations and thereby spare the main culprit who has committed the crime. In fact, such relationship of the witness with the deceased, if accepted by the Court, becomes all the more reliable as it is not expected that she would implicate an innocent person and thereby spare the actual accused who has committed the crime. 10. While dealing with similar witnesses, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govindaraju Vs. In fact, such relationship of the witness with the deceased, if accepted by the Court, becomes all the more reliable as it is not expected that she would implicate an innocent person and thereby spare the actual accused who has committed the crime. 10. While dealing with similar witnesses, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govindaraju Vs. State of Karnataka, 2009 (14) SCC 326 has held that: “It is a basic principle that the evidence of witnesses has to be appreciated as a whole, when the evidence is of an ordinary witness, who is not much educated and comes from a poor strata of society not having the advantage of education. The court has to keep in mind all these aspects. The witness is not expected to remember every small thing, more particularly when he faces the shock of the untimely death of his near relative.” 11. It is also a settled principle of law that while appreciating the evidence of rustic witnesses, the same has to be appreciated keeping in view their socio-economic, cultural and educational background. A witness is not expected to remember the details of the incident in minutest manner and reproduce the same in the Court like a parrot. Small or inconsequential, peripheral contradictions do appear in the evidence of witnesses. Small discrepancies or even exaggerations are natural to occur. In fact, the absence of any kind of discrepancy in the evidence especially when the deposition of the witness is made after a considerable period of time of one, two or three years of the incident, would make the witness all the more unreliable. Perfection of evidence in this imperfect world is only a utopian concept. Thus, keeping in view the fact that all the witnesses are young girls but not children in the sense that all of them are more than 12 years, we are of the opinion that their evidence given in the Court are quite satisfactory and can be relied upon especially when their evidences are corroborated by the evidence of the doctor who has conducted post-mortem examination. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the criminal appeal and, therefore, the same has to be dismissed without any interference. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is in his 60’s and hence, a lesser punishment may be given. 13. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the criminal appeal and, therefore, the same has to be dismissed without any interference. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is in his 60’s and hence, a lesser punishment may be given. 13. The offence u/s 302 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or maximum punishment of death penalty and it is also punishable with fine. So, the Court has no jurisdiction to reduce the punishment below the imprisonment of life. However, in appropriate cases, the State Government, by taking into consideration the good behavior of the appellant as well as the nature of crime and the antecedents of the appellant, may consider his case for premature release. We are of the opinion that this is a fit case where the premature release should be considered by the State Government in its proper perspective and hence, we are not inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of life to a lesser sentence of imprisonment. With such observations, this criminal appeal is dismissed. 14. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 17.09.1994 and order of sentence dated 19.09.1994 are hereby affirmed. The appellant is, therefore, directed to surrender before the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in the aforesaid case for being remanded to custody to serve the remaining part of sentence. 15. Records of the Trial Court be transmitted to it, forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment. 16. The learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribag is directed to take appropriate steps for recommitment of the case immediately. 17. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of. 18. Urgent Certified copies as per Rules. Ananda Sen, J. - I agree.